[Hpn] Trapped by the System

chance martin streetsheet@sf-homeless-coalition.org
Wed, 06 Dec 2000 22:47:30 -0700



Trapped by the System: Parole in America

Kelly Virella, AlterNet
December 3, 2000
Viewed on December 6, 2000


On a rainy afternoon late last year, 47-year-old Joseph Bostic stepped off a
Greyhound bus -- homeless, jobless, and $37 shy of penniless -- into New
York's bustling Port Authority station. Bostic was returning to Brooklyn
after finishing his second term in the New York state prison system. From
1983 to 1990, Bostic had served out his first prison term for a manslaughter
conviction. After seven years he had been let out on parole, but knew that
if he violated his parole conditions he'd go back to jail. So he did his
best to stay clean.

He did a pretty good job, too, except for one small crime that society
wouldn't normally take too seriously -- in 1997, Bostic overdrew his
checking account by $341. And for that, he spent three years in prison.

Statistics describing prison populations and crime in America reveal a
paradox. Though crime rates are falling, the prison population is still
growing. Why are more people going to prison than are committing crime?

In cases like that of Joseph Bostic, an explanation can be found in the
dysfunctional institution of parole. An August 2000 Department of Justice
(DOJ) study revealed that from 1990 to 1998, there was a 54 percent increase
in the number of parole violators returning to prison. Of the 423,000
paroles that came to a conclusion in 1998, 42 percent ended up with the
parolee going back to prison. In some states those percentages are much
higher; in California, nearly 70 percent of the people entering prison last
year were back because they violated their parole.

Some of these repeat offenders, to be sure, have committed serious crimes.
But some of them, including many who are trying to go straight, are faced
with parole conditions that are so strict that even things like chronic
unemployment can be considered just cause for reincarceration. At the same
time, services to help parolees reenter society are scarce, and laws
protecting ex-offenders from housing and employment discrimination are
virtually non-existent. To make matters worse, when parolees are convicted
of even the pettiest crimes -- like Bostic was -- due process is legally
suspended and often violated in order to reincarcerate them.

"Parole sets people up for failure," American Probation and Parole
Association president Carl Wicklund says. Wicklund calls the current
approach to supervising ex-offenders "tail-em, nail-em, jail-em." He scoffs
at the idea that most parole supervision methods are "tests" to see if
ex-offenders can make it in the outside world, saying the term is too mild.

"I would call them an obstacle course," he says.


Parole is the period of law enforcement supervision that typically follows
release from prison. For a prisoner who has served the minimum term of his
sentence, it's an alternative to further incarceration.

Before a prisoner is granted parole, a parole board reviews his case to
determine whether he is ready to be released. If the board judges that he
is, it gives him a release plan, which prescribes the conditions of his
parole. Release plans frequently include conditions like abstinence from
drugs and contact with other ex-offenders, retention of gainful employment,
and periodic reporting to a parole officer. If a parolee violates any of
these conditions, or is charged with committing a new crime, he is subject
to reincarceration.

After his first term in prison, Bostic's parole conditions required him to
meet bi-weekly, then monthly with the parole officer assigned him by the
parole division and to report all instances of police contact to him. During
their meetings, the parole officer filled out a report detailing any
problems Bostic reported having, any instances of police contact, and any
change of address. 

Bostic's parole officer was fairly easy-going, Bostic said. Others are much
more stringent. Some make unannounced visits to parolees homes, which are
allowed by law, and patrol the neighborhoods where parolees live, trying to
catch them violating a parole condition or committing a new crime. Some
parolees who have curfews report that they receive check-up calls and
drop-by visits from their parole officers ten-minutes after their curfews.

"Parole officers have plenty of incentives to reincarcerate parolees,"
University of Miami law professor Jonathon Simon explains. When states
abandoned their efforts to rehabilitate prisoners in favor of retribution
and public safety, the power to re-imprison parolees shifted from parole
boards to parole officers, Simon says. "Officers became first lines of
defense against crime rather than case managers, or social services
brokers," he says. "To keep their jobs, parole officers have to catch and
confine the bad guys. They usually choose to do that at the first sign of


With parole officers looking to nab them again, parolees are already facing
poor odds. Add to that the difficulty of adjusting to life "on the outside,"
especially after long prison terms, and it becomes obvious that ex-offenders
need more help than they're getting.

The trend, unfortunately, has been to cut back such support services.
Government funding for pre-release programs has always been inadequate, and
both prison rehabilitation programs and social services for parolees were
slashed during the '80s. Even the state of Washington, which has one of the
best pre-release programs in the country, only treats 30-40 percent of all
prisoners released.

Before Joseph Bostic was released, for example, the Department of
Correctional Services did little to get him re-adjusted to society, beside
help him put together a resume and prepare for job interviews. As he points
out, "To someone who doesn't have food or a place to stay, a resume in a
cruel job market doesn't seem like a much of a ticket."

Furthermore, only a handful of states have laws that protect ex-offenders
from housing and employment discrimination. That means that most landlords
and employers are allowed to ask applicants if they've ever been convicted
of a crime and discriminate against them if the answer is yes. Even the
federal government restricts ex-offender's access to low income public

These circumstances all contribute to our strikingly high reincarceration
rates. To brings those rates down, instead of beefing up anti-discrimination
laws or funding social services, during the 80s state governments tried
hiring more parole officers and enforcing stricter terms. With more
officers, the theory went, parole boards can give more individual attention
and help to each parolee.

But, not surprisingly, the more individual attention is paid to a parolee,
the more likely he is to be caught violating his terms of parole. A 1996
RAND study of 14 jurisdictions that had implemented more intensive
supervision programs (ISP) found that 65 percent of ISP parolees were
charged with violating some parole condition during the previous 5 years. In
comparison, only 38 percent of routinely supervised participants were
similarly charged. 

The study also found that 37 percent of the ISP parolees had been rearrested
and charged with committing a new crime, in comparison to only 33 percent of
the routinely supervised offenders.


Once accused of violating parole, ex-offenders stand a very small chance of
being exonerated: The federal government only requires states to grant
parolees a subset of the full due process of law.

"Almost none of the procedural rules that must be observed during any other
criminal proceeding apply to parole revocation hearings," New York Attorney
Steven Sanders says. Even in states whose standards are higher than federal
standards, the handful of safeguards that do exist are frequently ignored,
says Sanders, a 20-year veteran in this area of law who works for the Legal
Aid Society's Parole Revocation Defense Unit.

Joseph Bostic's case provides a striking example of how limited due process
can be in parole revocation cases. When Bostic pled guilty to overdrawing
his checking account, he was living in Georgia, working for a successful
construction business. Because he was on parole from New York, where he had
committed his original crime, New York began the process of extraditing him
to serve the rest of his original manslaughter term -- eight years. Due to
red tape and bureaucracy, Bostic sat in the Glynn County, Georgia jail for
four months, waiting to be transferred up north, without even having been
charged with a parole violation.

"I lost my job and my ties to my family, defaulted on loans and ruined my
credit while I sat in jail just waiting," he says.

Bostic was finally shipped to Rikers Island, New York, where he was held in
waiting for six more months. Finally, the New York parole division held his
parole revocation hearing and sentenced him, at first, to 15 months at
Walkill state prison. When the parole board conducted its review of his
case, it modified his sentence to 8 years, reasoning that 15 months was too

Unlike in other criminal proceedings, the federal government does not
require states to provide indigent parolees attorneys during their
revocation hearings. Parolees don't even have the right to call witnesses or
exclude hearsay testimony from their hearings. Court transcripts show that
at Bostic's hearing, the parole specialist claimed that Bostic's former
girlfriend had accused Bostic of making threatening phone calls to her.
There was no proof that Bostic had made any such calls, but the parole
specialists testimony was still allowed into the hearing.

To make matters worse, parole departments are commonly exempted from
judicial review, Attorney Sanders says. "Parole revocation hearings are
closed proceedings in which checks and balances are virtually non-existent,"
he says. New York courts, Sanders notes, have denied several recent
high-profile requests from parolees who wanted their cases reviewed by
someone less partial than the parole division. The New York courts told
these parolees to appeal to the parole division itself.

Advocates Fear a New Clinton Initiative

Following the August, 2000 DOJ study about parolee recidivism and prison
growth, President Clinton released a statement calling for "a new public
safety initiative aimed at providing greater supervision for offenders
reentering the community." The statement announced that the fiscal year 2001
budget appropriates $145 million for the development and support of
"innovative reentry programs that promote responsibility and help keep
ex-offenders on track and crime- and drug-free."

The initiative, called Project Reentry, would allot $60 million to fund the
development of "reentry partnerships" and "reentry courts" designed to
prevent parolees from backsliding like Bostic did. The money would also
allow parole divisions to hire more officers and increase their
officer-parolee ratio.

But Dr. James Austin, who has studied prisoner reentry extensively for the
Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at George Washington
University, is skeptical that Clinton's budget initiative would produce
results if adopted by Congress. "Compared to the $30-40 billion spent
annually on adult corrections, $145 million is nothing," Austin says.

Still others, like prison activist Dianne Williams, fear that Clinton's call
for "a new public safety initiative" will result in even stricter parole
supervision. "If the states who participate in the program use the money to
pick up more parole violators, I think there will be issues," she says.

Williams, who is President of the Safer Foundation, a Chicago-based group
that provides job-training for ex-offenders, does give Clinton credit for
trying to address parolee issues. "Parole officers caseload is too high and
I believe there needs to be a partnership between us and parole officers,"
Williams says. But, she adds, "I will always believe that social services
are the best place to put the dollars."

Indeed, $75 million of Clinton's Project Reentry would fund Department of
Labor job-training initiatives. And $10 million would fund Department of
Health and Human Services substance abuse and mental health treatment for
ex-offenders. This is the portion of the initiative that excites Williams,
since private donations cover only 5 percent of Safer Foundation's budget.

"It is difficult to get funding for re-entry projects," Williams says, "It
is not a popular cause -- not children, not battered women, not the arts.
It's just not hot."

Other community organizations like the Parolee Rights Project, recently
started by the non-profit where Joseph Bostic now works, are less
enthusiastic about what Project Reentry will mean. The Parolee Rights
Project is soliciting complaints about unfair parole supervisory practices
to prove that there are systemic abuses that might be corrected through
litigation. "We want to educate prisoners about how to navigate the system
when they come up for parole," executive director Jennifer Flynn says.

"We have plenty of parole officers," Bostic says, regarding Clinton's
initiative. "More job related programs, educational programs, and access to
low income housing are what we need, but this initiative won't make a dent
in those issues," he says. "$145 million is barely enough to pay the
salaries of the bureaucrats who will run the programs."

Take Action! Contact the Parolee Rights Project at 212-260-2512 to find out
how you can help. 


**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,
this material is distributed without charge or profit
to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this type of information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only.**

9000+ articles by or via homeless & ex-homeless people
Year 2000 posts
INFO & to join/leave list - Tom Boland
Nothing About Us Without Us -
Democratize Public Policy
A Publication of the Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco
468 Turk St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
415 / 346.3740 - voice
415 / 775.5639 - fax